2015 Mustang Ecoboost K/SA?

[6130]

Originally Posted by ALMACK

Low 11's stock longblock:

That's not just a stock long block- that's with the stock turbo too.

And it's also got the stock intake/exhaust manifolds, stock throttle body, stock torque converter, stock transmission, and stock rear end.

The car isn't quite legal for Stock Eliminator, but dang, if I could even get one to run a full second SLOWER than this guy's 11.03 @ 122, I'd still be more than six tenths under the K/SA index.

[Jesse Kershaw]

I'm glad to see this combo getting some attention. I submitted it before leaving Ford and after some back and forth with Pat Cvengros (who read over the TI like a hawk!) it was accepted pending a sample turbo. I had the turbo in a box ready to ship and asked for it to be sent on my last day. Not sure if it took them 18 months to ship it or if NHRA hadn't gotten around to putting it in the guide but it's nice to see it there now.

Jake Sealey was looking at running it as a SS/GT combo but I think he went 5.4L instead. I know Drew Skillman had been asking about it as well for a Stocker but that was years ago. I had a paper to build a one-off 2016 CJ with Ecoboost with giant turbo and ultra lighweight. I figured an 8.9 ET 4-banger showcar at SEMA /PRI would grab lots of attention.

I'm guessing you guys figured it out but 264 is 85% of 310. That was the agreement NHRA made for these new cars. Unfortunately they would not go back and alter the 2011-2014 Mustang GT's from 385hp.

And regarding IRS I had many conversations with NHRA tech about that. My opinion was that because all new muscle cars have IRS they should be required for street car stockers and the package cars would still be submitted and require approval for FS classes. I agree that a late model VIN'd Stocker should not get a stick axle conversion.

[Jake Sealey]

If only you didn't have run a V8 in SS/GT. We still have the engine, just need a body to make a stocker or a rule change to run GT .

[Jim Caughlin]

Yep, no 4 cylinders in GT, I would be running one if it was legal.

Jim Caughlin
SS/ES 6019

[Jesse Kershaw]

Ah, I recall this conversation now about SS/GT and 4-cylinders.

Do we know why that rule exists? Has anyone requested that NHRA change that? Every manufacturer has big power turbo 4's and 6's now.

Maybe Mike D at Ford could take up the charge to change that.

[ALMACK]

Originally Posted by Jesse Kershaw

I'm glad to see this combo getting some attention. I submitted it before leaving Ford and after some back and forth with Pat Cvengros (who read over the TI like a hawk!) it was accepted pending a sample turbo. I had the turbo in a box ready to ship and asked for it to be sent on my last day. Not sure if it took them 18 months to ship it or if NHRA hadn't gotten around to putting it in the guide but it's nice to see it there now.

Jake Sealey was looking at running it as a SS/GT combo but I think he went 5.4L instead. I know Drew Skillman had been asking about it as well for a Stocker but that was years ago. I had a paper to build a one-off 2016 CJ with Ecoboost with giant turbo and ultra lighweight. I figured an 8.9 ET 4-banger showcar at SEMA /PRI would grab lots of attention.

I'm guessing you guys figured it out but 264 is 85% of 310. That was the agreement NHRA made for these new cars. Unfortunately they would not go back and alter the 2011-2014 Mustang GT's from 385hp.

And regarding IRS I had many conversations with NHRA tech about that. My opinion was that because all new muscle cars have IRS they should be required for street car stockers and the package cars would still be submitted and require approval for FS classes. I agree that a late model VIN'd Stocker should not get a stick axle conversion.

It looks like your talk with NHRA on the newer cars had some effect after all Jesse.

Too bad the OBD II cars could not get a break, but at least all the newer cars entering the classification guide from now on will get the 85/85 ratings

[ALMACK]

Originally Posted by Jesse Kershaw

Ah, I recall this conversation now about SS/GT and 4-cylinders.

Do we know why that rule exists? Has anyone requested that NHRA change that? Every manufacturer has big power turbo 4's and 6's now.

Maybe Mike D at Ford could take up the charge to change that.

For the last 5 years I have wanted to be able to put my 2.3Turbo engine in another body and run SS/GT

[6130]

Originally Posted by Jesse Kershaw

I'm glad to see this combo getting some attention. I submitted it before leaving Ford and after some back and forth with Pat Cvengros (who read over the TI like a hawk!) it was accepted pending a sample turbo. I had the turbo in a box ready to ship and asked for it to be sent on my last day. Not sure if it took them 18 months to ship it or if NHRA hadn't gotten around to putting it in the guide but it's nice to see it there now.

I'm guessing you guys figured it out but 264 is 85% of 310. That was the agreement NHRA made for these new cars.

Thank you.

And yeah, I know about the 85% thing.

I'm thinking that the 2105 cars are now almost four years old, and could probably be picked up pretty reasonably.

The "Performance Package" car comes with bigger heavier brakes, stiffer springs, and a couple of other odds and ends that add weight, so I was thinking of a non Performance Package" car.

Like I said, I'm just kind of spit-balling here, but I think a 3" mandrel-bent cat-less downpipe dumping open under the car and an appropriate "tune" would be the only horsepower-increasing modifications needed.

The required safety equipment we've already discussed, and since it needs a roll bar and 16.1 harness, maybe a pair of lightweight racing seats. Other weight-loss areas might include jettisoning the spare tire, jack, lug wrench, rear seat, exhaust system, front sway bar, radio speakers, carpet padding, sound insulation, and a few other odds and ends. It seems apparent that they will run under index overweight, with power brakes, power steering, and air-conditioning systems intact.

I've looked at smaller/lighter brakes, but now I don't think the car even needs them to be able to run under. So maybe a set of 17" Race Star wheels to clear the stock brakes, DOT-legal front runners, 9" wide DOT-legal drag slick type tire in the back, and I'd even be able to leave the jack at home.

[ALMACK]

Should be able to run 1 second (or more) under for less than 30K including the price of the car and required Stock Eliminator safety equipment.

When the 2.3 EB Mustang came out in the guide a few weeks ago, I looked into what it would take to run 1.00 under.
Then I realized that someone is going to blast the index with that combo and in less than a year it will be in F or G Stock

[Jesse Kershaw]

Originally Posted by ALMACK

Too bad the OBD II cars could not get a break, but at least all the newer cars entering the classification guide from now on will get the 85/85 ratings

I did push for all OBD-II cars to get a break. I believe you and I emailed about it several times. But unfortunately it didn't happen and you have to pick your battles. 15% off going forward seemed reasonable although I would have liked 18 or 20% better. haha.